This is a summary of the talks from the different countries at the 2026 AEWA conference in Finland. It comes as no surprise to know that there is still much work to do across Europe to protect the birds but it is only through collaboration that we will succeed.
The talks from different European countries present remarkably consistent evidence:
Curlews are declining because too few young survive to fledging. Adult survival often remains relatively high, but breeding productivity is below replacement level across much of the range.
The precise balance of pressures varies between countries, but the same interacting
problems recur:
1. Loss and deterioration of open, wet breeding habitat
2. Agricultural intensification or, conversely, abandonment
3. High predation of eggs and especially chicks
4. Fragmented, isolated populations
5. Climate change intensifying drought, flooding and food shortages
6. Conservation plans that are inadequately funded or implemented
7. Major gaps in knowledge about chick survival and productivity
The strongest shared conclusion is that no single intervention is sufficient. Curlew
recovery requires coordinated management of habitat, farming, water and predators
at a landscape scale.
Individual Country Summaries:
Each summary will give an update and will detail the factors contributing to the declines.
Ireland
Ireland has around 105 breeding pairs following a decline of more than 95%. Many pairs are isolated and the population may be close to functional extinction.
Silage replacing hay, drainage, forestry on peatlands, scrub following agricultural abandonment, peat extraction, fire, recreation and predation by foxes, corvids, mink, pine martens and raptors.
UK
The long term decline is continuing although the rate may of slowed recently. Productivity remains too low in most areas.
Agricultural intensification, drainage, monoculture grassland, repeated mowing, woodland planting near breeding areas, peatland damage and high predation of eggs and chicks.
Germany
There are fewer than 4000 breeding pairs, stable or increasing populations only occur in a few intensively managed sites.
Agriculture, drainage, fragmentation and predation. Mammalian predator control can improve hatching, but avian predation, particularly of chicks, may then become the limiting factor. Lack of implementation and funding is repeatedly emphasised.
Netherlands
There are approximately 3300 – 4100 breeding pairs and still declining rapidly. Although, up to 200,000 non-breeding Curlews use the country.
Drainage, soil desiccation, intensive agriculture, fragmentation, predation and insufficient Curlew-specific provision within schemes largely designed for Godwits.
Flanders
There are probably fewer than the estimated 300–450 pairs of Curlew with a decline of around 30-40% in 20 years. This decline seems to be continuing.
Habitat loss, altered hydrology, infrastructure, intensive mowing, vegetation becoming too rank, increasing predator populations, drought and flooding. Curlews are dispersed through the wider farmed landscape and are therefore harder to protect than godwits.
France
There are approximately 830 – 1000 breeding pairs with decline happening even in the principal areas of conservation.
Early mowing, agricultural intensification, drainage, predation and increasingly severe drought. Hunting remains subject to an annually renewed zero quota rather than permanent closure.
Hungary
Perhaps only about 20 breeding pairs remain, concentrated at very few sites.
Agricultural intensification combined with increasing aridity, native predators, disturbance and hunting around breeding and stopover sites.
Norway
Estimate uncertain, but formerly around 2,000–3,000 pairs; monitoring indicates a severe decline, especially in southern and western
farmland.
Drainage, agricultural change, reduced
insect availability, development, wind-
energy infrastructure, disturbance and
possible pressures along the migration
route. Productivity is largely unknown.
Estonia
National estimate has been revised downwards. Declines occur particularly in farmland, while mire populations may be more
stable.
Habitat change and very high nest predation. Little is known about productivity or movements of curlews breeding in mires.
Finland
Europe’s largest population in these reports—around 76,000 pairs—but both range and population are declining.
Specialization and intensification of farming, destruction of nests during cultivation, predation, drainage of mires and poorly understood demographic processes. Finland is a warning that large populations should not be assumed to be secure.
Denmark
An exception: breeding curlews appear comparatively stable, while wintering and staging numbers have increased.
Drainage remains important, while breeding-population knowledge is weak. Wetland restoration and extensive shooting-free areas appear beneficial.
The Strongest Similarities
1. The basic demographic problem is poor productivity. Across the talks, the principal mechanism is not generally adult mortality but the failure to produce enough fledged young. Nests may be destroyed by farm machinery, grazing, flooding or predators; chicks then face further losses through predation, poor food supplies and unsuitable vegetation. This produces a deceptive situation: adult curlews may return for many years, giving the impression that a population persists, while almost no young birds are entering it.
2. Agriculture is changing in two damaging directions. Curlews are caught between intensification and abandonment.
Intensification brings:
– Drainage and lower water tables
– Conversion of diverse grassland to uniform ryegrass or arable land
– Earlier and more frequent mowing
– Larger, more homogeneous fields
– Direct destruction of nests and chicks
– Reduced abundance and accessibility of invertebrate food
Abandonment can be equally problematic in marginal areas, particularly in Ireland and parts of continental Europe. Without grazing or cutting, open ground develops rank vegetation, scrub and eventually woodland, making it unsuitable for curlews and more attractive to predators. The birds therefore need active, sympathetic farming—not simply the absence of farming.
3. Habitat and predation cannot be separated Predation was identified almost everywhere, but the talks strongly suggest that it
should not be treated as an isolated cause. Fragmented habitat, woodland edges, dry ground, tall vegetation and small remnant
colonies make nests and chicks easier to locate. Poor feeding habitat also forces chicks to move farther or spend longer feeding, increasing exposure. Predator pressure is therefore partly a consequence of wider landscape change. Germany provided the clearest demonstration. Controlling mammalian predators substantially improved hatching and initially improved fledging, but avian
predators, particularly buzzards, then became a major constraint. This shows that controlling one predator group without understanding the whole system may simply shift the bottleneck.
4. Nest protection works but does not necessarily produce fledged young
Evidence from the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and elsewhere shows that electric fencing can greatly increase nest survival. In the English trials, fencing increased nest survival sevenfold. But this did not usually translate into sustainable productivity because chicks remained exposed once they left the nest. This is perhaps the most important practical lesson:
– Saving nests is not the same as recovering a population.
– Success must be measured in fledged chicks and subsequent recruitment, not
simply nests found, eggs protected or chicks hatched.
5. Head-starting buys time but cannot repair the landscape. Ireland, the UK and Flanders all discussed head-starting. It can produce many more fledged young, and early results show that some released birds survive and return to breed. It may be indispensable for populations close to extinction. However, every presentation carrying evidence on this point reached the same conclusion:
Head-starting is not a stand-alone solution. Returning birds encounter the same damaged habitats and predator pressure as wild birds. It is best understood as an emergency measure that keeps a population alive while the underlying landscape is repaired.
6. Climate change magnifies existing pressures. Climate change is not presented as a distant, separate threat. It is already interacting
with drainage and intensive farming:
– Drought hardens soils and reduces invertebrate availability.
– Sudden flooding destroys nests in coastal and low-lying areas.
– Higher temperatures further dry already drained agricultural soils.
– Suitable breeding conditions may contract towards wetter, higher or more
northerly areas. France, Flanders, the Netherlands, Hungary and the UK particularly emphasized this
interaction.
7. Protected status alone is not enough. Several talks showed that populations continue to decline inside protected areas. Germany reported that many birds receive little practical protection even within SPAs. France has an action plan awaiting implementation. Flanders has a framework and key-site network but insufficient ambition and money in many areas. The common failure is therefore not primarily a lack of plans. It is a lack of:
– Long-term funding
– Delivery mechanisms
– Local staff and advisers
– Farmer support
– Predator-management capacity
– Coordination between agencies and administrative regions
– Accountability for productivity and population outcomes. Germany stated this most bluntly: much of the necessary knowledge already exists; the real gap is implementation and political will.
Important differences
The talks also warn against imposing one prescription everywhere.
– Finland still holds a very large population but lacks detailed demographic knowledge. Its priority is to understand and prevent decline before emergency intervention becomes necessary.
– Ireland and Hungary are managing tiny remnants where extinction prevention, intensive protection and possibly population reinforcement are urgent.
– Germany, the Netherlands and Flanders have highly fragmented, intensively managed landscapes where landscape-scale water and farming reform are essential.
– Estonia and Finland retain important mire populations, requiring different management from lowland agricultural birds.
– Denmark offers evidence that wetland restoration, reduced hunting disturbance and favourable land management can produce more positive trends.
– Northern Germany demonstrates that even exemplary habitat management and mammalian predator control may fail if chick predation by birds becomes the next limiting factor.
Shared conservation priorities
Taken together, the presentations point towards seven priorities for European Curlew recovery:
1. Protect the remaining strong populations before they decline, particularly in Finland and other northern strongholds.
2. Concentrate intensive recovery work in core breeding landscapes, without abandoning scattered remnant populations of strategic importance.
3. Restore wet, open, structurally varied landscapes, including higher water tables and accessible chick-feeding habitat.
4. Fund curlew-compatible farming, including delayed mowing, appropriate grazing, nest marking and protection, and management sustained for many years.
5. Manage predation as part of a whole-landscape approach, based on evidence about which predators take eggs and chicks at each site.
6. Measure fledging and recruitment, rather than relying on activity measures such as hectares managed or nests fenced.
7. Turn action plans into funded delivery programmes, with named responsibility, local advisers, measurable targets and regular reporting.
Central message
Across Europe, curlews are experiencing different versions of the same crisis. Open, wet and heterogeneous landscapes have become drier, simpler, more fragmented and more dangerous. Conservation frequently succeeds in protecting nests, but not in carrying enough chicks through to fledging. The encouraging evidence is that curlews can respond when all their needs are met. The successful German sites, wetland restoration in Denmark, intensive work in Ireland and parts of the UK, and stable mire populations in Estonia all demonstrate that decline is not inevitable. But the scale of intervention matters. The collective message is not that Europe needs more isolated projects or another set of action plans. It is that existing knowledge must be turned into sustained, coordinated management of whole breeding landscapes with farmers, water managers, predator specialists, government agencies and local communities all working towards the same measurable outcome – more young curlews surviving to join the breeding population.